Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1984-12-18 9276 MINUTES OF THE 488th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, December 18, 1984, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 488th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. R. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. , with approx- imately 70 interested persons in the audience. Members present: R. Lee Morrow Herman Kluver Jeanne Hildebrandt Sue Sobolewski Donna Naidow Michael Duggan C. Russ Smith Donald Vyhnalek Joseph J. Falk Members absent: None Mr. Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight 's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition in- volves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Councii ;otherwise the petition is terminated. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 84-11-1-36 by Basney & Smith, Inc. , to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Schoolcraft Service Drive and Newburgh Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19 from RUF to P.S. (It Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence relative to this petition in the file. William Roskelly, 15126 Beech Daly, developer: My intent and hopes are that you would seriously consider and grant permission for the rezoning of this parcel of land so that I may put in a professional office build- ing, a portion of which would be used by my firm and there are two interested parties considering the balance. I have a copy of the tentative site plan. Mr. Morrow: The Chair will rule that we will stick with the rezoning request now, not the site plan. Mr. Roskelly: In my opinion, since this land is on two arterial roads and the existing subdivison has been there for decades , it is not the most desirable location for single family homes. I think a professional building would be the least undesirable. Mr. Morrow: Are you the current owner? Mr. Roskelly: No, I have an option. John Ormiston, 14125 Newburgh : I object to having as large a structure as he is con- sidering on this property. It is not fitting with the neighborhood. The property is not the most desirable for single family but I don't 9277 think I would want a McDonald's either. A professional building would be okay if it is pleasing and not a two-story building. Once 1:, they put a business on that lot, my property value has got to go down. I would suggest that if it is going to be done that it be kept single story with a berm so it looks more like a residence. I am against this petition. It would have to be modified. Mr. Morrow: We are talking about rezoning to the P.S. District and we cannot restrict the client as to what he can build. Margaret Pankow, 14001 Newburgh: I object to the rezoning. I am sure it is not desirable for residential and our home was built in 1977. The way it is now, there is privacy for the people in the area and we enjoy that. I am against the professional rezoning, especially because we cannot necessarily restrict the uses in P.S. A one story building could possibly be considered but not the way it is right now. George Bielis, 14051 Richfield: By rezoning this to P.S. , it is going to change the whole traffic pattern. People will come down Richfield to get to Newburgh by Perth. We get enough traffic now without a professional building going in. And, my home was built in 1977. Louise Bielis, 14051 Richfield: Richfield is a dirt road and constantly full of holes. We have a tremendous amount of traffic and we would have three times as much traffic coming through there. By putting any kind of build- ing there it would actually take away from the rural setting which is why we bought in this area. And we already get an excessive amount of noise from the Freeway and we don't need any more. I am opposed to the rezoning. Mrs. Sobolewski : Can't traffic cross over the Freeway to get on it? Mrs. Bielis: No. Actually you have to go down about a mile to make a turn-around. People would use Richfield to get onto Newburgh Road to get onto the Freeway. Mr. Roskelly: I would like to apologize. When I said the subdivision had been there for decade, I meant the land was divided for residential development many years ago, not that the homes were that old. From the standpoint of the noise, if a professional building were placed here with a screen wall , it might , in fact, abate the noise. Mr. Smith: We are talking tonight about a zoning that is highly restricted as to what type of business can go there and as to how many cars and parking spaces would be allowed. P.S. buildings generally close at 5:00 p.m. The noise would probably be minimal if you look at a building that opens at 9:00 a.m. and closes at 5:00 p.m. . Like attorneys, engineers, etc. , On every northwest corner of the School- craft corridor of the City there is commercial or P.S. development. There would be a site plan approval and the Planning Commission can request a berm or any change on the site plan that is compatible with the neighborhood. In that way we can control what is going in there, but tonight we are talking about zoning only. I see no reason not to support this. It is not a McDonald's . If the traffic becomes 9278 a problem, the residents can petition the Police Department for a no-turn sign there. I am in favor of this rezoning. 1:0 Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the height proposed? Mr. Roskelly: This building would not exceed 28 feet. It will be as low as possible. Mrs. Bielis: On the southeast corner, there is a beautiful office building. It is empty now. All around us there are these buildings and they are all empty - in the professional area. Why another one? Why can't he move to an empty one? Mr. Morrow: Mr. Roskelly indicates he wants to build a building for himself. Mr. Howland, 14330 Richfield: Part of the reason we moved here is that it is a nice wooded setting, especially with Madonna College right across the street. This area on the north side of Schoolcraft is residential . On the south it is industrial . I object to this because it is mainly a residential area. To put an office building there would take away from the aesthetics of the area and property values. If the property is rezoned to P.S. , can any variances be obtained? Mr. Morrow: For what? Mr. Howland: Any kind of variance. Mr. Morrow: If a hardship exists, he can go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for lisserelief. There is no relief for use but perhaps for landscaping as opposed to a wall . William Hass, 14025 Newburgh: I am opposed to a two-story building like this in a residential area. There are all one-story buildings in the area and it would stand out like a sore thumb. Also, on the basis of privacy, this is a wooded area and provides privacy which would be lost. Mr. Falk: I do think the character of the neighborhood has been established as residential and I think the people expect it to be residential . I think this is spot zoning. The Future Land Use Plan states that this should be residential and I concur. I think the character of the neighborhood would be eroded. When you put in zoning, you cannot condition it. There is ample land and building spaces available. Ronald Betts, 14051 Newburgh: I would like to see this stay residential . Robert Jamrog, 14024 Richfield: Further down Schoolcraft there is residential zoning and there is nothing to say that that wouldn't become professional . Mr. Falk: Are all four lots owned by one person? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. kliweMr. Falk: Do you know when the land was purchased? Mr. Roskelly: No. 9279 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petiton 84-11-1-36 closed. teOn a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt and seconded by Mr. Duggan, it was #12-243-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 18, 1984 on Petition 84-11-1-36 by Basney & Smith, Inc. , to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Schoolcraft Service Drive and Newburgh Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19 from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-11-1-36 be denied for the follow- ing reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan recommendation of low density residential land use for the subject property. (2) The proposed change of zoning would constitute spot zoning which would tend to encourage similar requests in the area. (3) The subject lots are sufficient in width and depth so as to accommodate single-family residences with generous setbacks from the Schoolcraft Service Drive. (4) The proposed change of zoning would tend to cause the erosion of the existing residential character of the neighborhood. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 11. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Hildebrandt, Naidow, Falk, Duggan, Sobolewski , Morrow NAYS: Kluver, Vyhnalek, Smith Mr. Morrow, Chairman, announced the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-11-2-36 by Arbor Drugs, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval for an SDD License proposed to be utilized in conjunction with an exist- ing business located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, south of Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Division of Engineering stating there are no problems connected with this development. John Carney, 18518 Farmington Road, Attorney representing the petitioner: You are going to have to deny me. Everybody knows it and I know it because the City Ordinance doesn' t allow an SDD License within 1 ,000 feet of another SDD License. There is an SDM License on the site now. I would like the Commission to deny me subject to the proviso that there is no problem locating a license within this shopping center (biliro if the Liquor Control Commission approves it. The Liquor Control Commission does not measure the way the City of Livonia does. 9280 Clarence Charest, Jr. , Attorney, 32437 Five Mile Road: In this case, I concur with Mr. Carney that the Commission is compelled to deny this petition 1:, and I imagine it will be, at some point decided by Council . Owner of the Livonia Wine Shop, 28225 Five Mile Road: I own and operate the Livonia Wine Shop. We have been there almost ten years . We were in front of the City Council a year ago proposing to deny the request of Arbor Drugs and; we brought with us statements from the homeowners association saying that the area is saturated with licenses. The businessmen are doing a good job in that area for anything that is needed. Since then, there has been another license on Five Mile and Schoolcraft . The population has not increased and I don' t think it is going to increase because there is no more land to attract population. I don't think we need another license in that area. It is a matter of surviving. If you want to maintain the structure of business in the neighborhood, please deny this request. Martin Ferris , 29408 Lori : There are liquor stores all over the place in this area. I just don't think we need another one. Mr. Morrow: We are going to deny this request. It is prohibited by Ordinance and we have to abide by the Ordinance. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski , seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #12-244-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on II December 18, 1984 on Petition 84-11 -2-36 by Arbor Drugs, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval for an SDD Licensed proposed to be utilized in conjunction with an existing business located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, south of Five Mile Road in the North- east 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-11-2-36 be denied for the following reason: (1) The proposed use is in conflict with Section 11 .03(r) (1) of Zoning Ordinance #543 which requires such proposed SDD Licensed establishments to be located at least 1 ,000 feet distant from any existing SDD Licensed establishment. FURTHER RESOLVED that , notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-10-1-30 by Greenfield Construction Company to rezone property located on the east side of the 1-275 Freeway, north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 from R-81I to P.0.-II . Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Division of Engineering stating there are no engineering problems associated with this rezoning proposal . • 9281 Paul Riggio, Greenfield Construction Company: This area is not conducive any more to the R-81I . We are kind of landlocked and we would like to be in correspondence with the area. The C-41I which is the Holiday Inn, and the C-4 on the south which is the Quality Inn, will add on rooms and the area is getting away from the residential zoning. Originally, we wanted to raise the tax base by going professional office. There are some condominiums going in there now. We also own sixteen acres in the R-7 zoning classification. The R-811 is landlocked behind Brashear Towers and the Woods condos. The Commission indicated its desire to study this proposal further, along with others appearing on the agenda tonight , and their relationship and effect on the Future Land Use Plan. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-10-1-30 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Duggan, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #12-245-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 18, 1984 on Petition 84-10-1-30 by Greenfield Construction Company to rezone property located on the east side of the 1-275 Freeway , north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 from R-811 to P.0.-I1 , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-10-1-30 until the Study Meeting to be conducted on January 8, 1985. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, announced that Petition 84-11-1-31 is removed from the agenda tonight. The petitioner is going to re-submit his petition and it will be re-advertised. He informed the audience that those who were notified of this hearing tonight would be notified as to the night of the hearing on the matter when the petition is re-submitted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-11-1-32 by LPR Properties, Ltd. , to rezone property located on the west side of Laurel Park Drive, north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 from R-91I to P.0.-II . Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there are no engineering problems associated with this petition. Richard Lambert, 555 S. Woodward, Birmingham: We have held this property for several years under the present zoning and we attempted on one other occasion to utilize the property for elderly housing. It was the opinion of the Council members that we consider office utilization which we have over the years. We believe that with what has transpired in the neighboring community that it is approprite to rezone this for office. We think the location of the property considering the adjacent property to the south which is being developed office is appropriate and that it is appropriate at this time to come forward lbw and rezone the property to professional office. It is our intention • 9282 to put in a building compatible with the area and residential facilities to the north. We find this a very effective buffer between the Woods and the condos being developed on Laurel Park Drive on the south. 1:0 Mr. Morrow: One of the concerns of the Commission with these petitions is that that they are in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan. We realize that things don't always stay as they are and are subject to change. We are looking at some rezoning requests that will do away with some multiple zoning in the area and the Planning Commission wants to look at these proposals a little more in depth. We are not sure we want to lose that much residential . Mr. Lambert: We are interested in working with you in a study session in identifying a use for the property. Dennis Lansky, 38993 Reo Drive: I object to the rezoning. I work in an office and don't want to look at it when I come home. When I bought in this area, I looked at it for residential . I strongly disagree to rezone to anything other than residential . There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-11-1-32 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #12-246-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on IlLw December 18, 1984 on Petition 84-11-1-32 by LPR Properties , Ltd. , to rezone property located on the west side of Laurel Park Drive, north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 from R-911 to P.0.-11 , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-11-1-32 until the Study Meeting to be conducted on January 8, 1985. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-11-1-33 by James Blain for Republic Development Corporation to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18 from R-7 to C-2, P.S. , C-1 and P.O. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division dated 11/28/84 stating that with respect to Parcels 4 and 5, Quaker- town Lane will be the only means of access to these parcels due to the limited access property line of the 1-96 Freeway along Six Mile Road. This will necessitate openings through current boule- vard areas of Quakertown Lane. Charles Tangora. Attorney representing the petitioner: Great effort has been put into this plan and it was discussed with the residents. Both corners are owned by Repulbic Development Company. At the time it was purchased, Republic planned to rezone it to commercial and office. As they developed the subdivision, the planned as they moved in to (111 develop the front area that is vacant in commercial and office build- ings . That is what we have right now. Republic is the developer. Mr. Blain is the Architect and has worked up all the plans. He has 9283 worked closely with the subdivision. One of the problems they had was the traffic on Quakertown Drive. 1:0 James Blain, Architect, 31800 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills; We looked at Six, Seven and Eight Mile on both sides of the Freeway. When we looked at this site, even before we went to the neighbors we looked at how Six Mile is being developed. We have met with the neighbors on three occasions. We have considered all their traffic concerns and types of use. We came up with four different proposals. Mr. Blain explained the four proposals to the members of the Commission and audience. Mr. Falk: Are you at liberty to name the restaurant that will be going in the area? Mr. Blain: It is a sit-down restaurant. It is not a fast-food restaurant. Mr. Kluver: How did you arrive at your conclusions that it shouldn' t be all commercial? Mr. Blain: I have never seen intersections that have gone residential and we came to the conclusion for restauant and services based on the number of people. We decided it couldn' t be all office. It was just a common sense decision and also what the residents wanted. Peter Gentelia, 16221 Quakertown, President of the Quakertown Civic Association : We held a meeting with approximately fifty residents. 88% were in favor of this proposal . One of the concerns was traffic. We feel now that Mr. Blain has segregated the traffic. In our meeting last night, one of the residents suggested a way of avoiding traffic coming into the Subdivision and exiting out Meetinghouse Lane and Mr. Blain assured us that he would incorporate that into the plan. We don't see the type of traffic such as is front of the Emporium but there going to be a lot of traffic in the area but I don't think this project will have a great impact on it. I think people believe there is an absence of better restaurants in Livonia and they usually have to travel to Farmington Hills or Northville for one. Also, we hope for some type of specialty shops that we don't presently have in Livonia. Mr. Morrow: Based on your meeting with the homeowners , how did the current R-7 zoning stack up in the priority of preference? Mr. Gentelia: I think they would like to see the area remain vacant but I don't that will happen. There were no overwhelming comments as to main- taining it as it is . Mr. Vyhnalek: How many homeowners are there in the association? Mr. Gentelia: Approximately 120 to 130 homes. Dennis Lansky, 38990 Reo: I object to the rezoning. I have a real problem with the rezoning. Mr. Blain does not live in Quakertown. When I bought , 416, there was no consideration for this to be commercial . There are 9284 only two entrances into the subdivision and the subdivision is 1:: growing. The office complex will not be a problem. I do object to the restaurant. When exiting off 1-275, you are forced to go one way or another, Many people make the wrong decision and have to make a U-turn into Quakertown Lane. That causes congestion . There is a similar C-1 area with stores on Five Mile and Newburgh. Some of those stores are open, some are closed. I think this will lower the property values and take away from the residential type use. I strongly object. Nancy Lansky, 38990 Reo: Mr. Blain mentioned in his presentation something about an Applegate type center in this area. We bought a larger home and all the other homes are lower classed homes. If you are talking about an Applegate Shopping Center, I don' t think the people in this subdivision will go there. You are putting in lower class homes and a higher class shopping center. We have all types of shops within not more than a mile away from us. I object to this rezoning. Bruce Van Dam, 38685 Stacey Court: We bought a home from Republic and we signed a statement at the time that there was a possibility that the land would be rezoned for apartments or condos. I believe what he wants to do would be very beneficial to the majority of the people. Restaurants are hard to find. I think it is a sensible approach to using the property which has been vacant for a long time. Mr. Morrow: I commend the petitioners for working with the neighbors in the area and showing them the respect we feel they deserve. 10, Mr. Falk: In your presentation, did you say you have commitments from some of these stores? Mr. Blain: Yes, we have a 30,000 square foot use for the office building. Two restaurants we are negotiating with. We have no commitment on the specialty stores. We sat down and talked about stores that we thought would be good for the neighborhood. Something like Applegate. We are looking for smaller type shops. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-11-1-33 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Duggan, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #12-247-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 18, 1984 on Petition 84-11-1-33 by James Blain for Republic Development Corporation requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18 from R-7 to C-2, P.S. , C-1 & P.O. , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-11-1-33 until the study meeting to be conducted on January 8, 1985. 410, Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 9285 Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-11-1-34 by Lidia D. Veri requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Shadyside in the South- west 1/4 of Section 3 from R-3A to C-1 and R-7. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that appropriate deceleration lanes along Seven Mile Road could be required by the Wayne County Road Commission and this will nec- essitate the dedication of the Seven Mile right-of-way in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. Also there are no sanitary or storm sewer facilities readily available to service the site. Mrs. Veri explained her plans to the Commission and stated she thought it would be much better with commercial in the front. There would be more privacy for the people there. We plan to incorporate more property and have made an offer on additional lots. Mr. Smith: Will yourplan change now by your incorporating the additional area you are speaking of? Perhaps it should be tabled for further study. Mrs. Veri : We are going to incorporate everything. We want to keep them next to each other but separate. Mrs. Sobolewski : How would you take access to the apartments? Mrs. Veri : We would have to come in our own property. Would that be a private road? Mr. Nagy: Unless it is dedicated. Mr. Morrow: We were somewhat in favor of this because when we looked at the entire site, with the R-7 in the back we can see using that piece of property to stop further commercial to the east and back up the R-7 to the rear and have it follow along the flood plain . Mrs. Veri : The land is so deep it wouldn' t be good to use it for commercial About 400' we would be able to use for commercial . Mr. Kluver: If the petitioner is amenable now that we have additional property that would have some impact on the future project concerning traffic, I would support Mr. Smith to table it. Mr. Falk: Hasn' t it been the City's plan to have that property zoned other than commercial to lessen the traffic generation on Seven Mile? Am I right that the City has been trying not to extend the com- mercial? Mr. Nagy: Yes, the Future Land Use Plan tries to keep in tact the residential character of the area, but things change in areas. Each petition has to be looked at on its own merits . There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-11-1 -34 closed. IvOn a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was 9286 #12-248-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 18, 1984 on Petition 84-11-1-34 by Lidia Veri to rezone 111, property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Shadyside in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 from R-3A to C-1 and R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-11-1-34 until such time as the petitioner contacts the Commission regarding development of the property including the pro- posed additional property. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, delcared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-11-1-35 by Carlos R. Galeana to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Farmington and Pickford Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from R-3 to P.S. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that there are no engineering problems connected with this proposal . There is also a letter from Jim Gabler, 18365 Filmore stating that he is against the rezoning. Carlos R. Galeana, 14375 Hubbard: I propose to build a one-story building for my own usage. I will have some excess. The majority of the building will be for for my general insurance agency, Auto Club-Livonia Central Agency, and two other agents. The question about the irregular wall ; I don' t know how to correct that. The rear is 150' and the front is 140' . My proposal would be in some way to give it to the party who owns the property in the back or front so they would have the use of the property. As far as the building itself, I want to bring something compatible to that area. I would like to work with the Planning Commission on the type of building and structure. My main concern is that I have lived in Livonia for the past seventeen years, and this is where I work and where my customers are. The future plans of Livonia show that this area is going P.S. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-11-1-35 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #12-249-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 18, 1984 on Petition 84-11-1-35 by Carlos R. Galeana to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Farmington and Pickford Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from R-3 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-11-1-35 be approved for the following reaons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan . (2) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a buffer or transition use between Farmington Road traffic and residential uses to the west. (3) The P.S. , Professional Service, Zoning District will provide for 9287 uses that are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, delcared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-12-2-37 by Ray Ducher requesting waiver use approval to construct an auto repair facility on the south side of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that there are no engineering problems connected with this proposal . There is a letter from Jack & Marilyn McDonald protesting an additional commercial building along side of the car wash due to the traffic conditions now created by the car wash and transmission repair shop. There is also a letter in the file from Harry Van Ess requesting that the Commission consider all the information con- tained in his letter regarding the fact that he will be submitting a waiver of use request for his own shop in January before making a decision of the waiver request by Mr. Ducher. Dick Murningham, 29020 Five Mile Road, representing the petitioner: Mr. Ducher has been in the auto repair business for thirteen years. He has been negotiating for three to four months for thi-s property. A real estate broker was interested in building an office on this land IL and at that time Mr. Ducher made an offer suject to a building permit being granted for this use. This is the only parcel of land east of where I live zoned C-2 . All other land is zoned C-1 . I talked with some neighbors today and there are some concerns about the present use. Many of these people are aware that this has been zoned C-2 for a number of years, and C-2 allows many commercial uses. An office building is allowed in a professional service zoning. I feel there are more objectionable uses that could be utilized for this land than the auto repair facility. We have addressed the parking and storage of automobiles. The code requires eight for three bays . We have provided for 27 including landscaping. There was some concern about traffic coming in and out . We addressed that by removing two parking bays . The rear area has some 19 parking places which are almost totally screened from traffic on Five Mile Road. We recognize there may be overnight automobiles but we do not anticipate having any cars that are lacking parts. There will be no damaged automobiles. The emissions law is such that everyone is going to be required to have certification once a year of the emission control system. This will be for taking care of that particular work. We have revised the landscape plan and relocated the trash container. We talked to the gentleman in the rear and most of these changes have been made by him. Mr. Duggan : How are the emission tests going to run? 1j Mr. Ducher: Basically, what is going to happen is that before you purchase your license plateyou will have a period of time for your car to be put 9291 (3) that Building Elevations as shown on Plan 8450, Sheet P-4, dated 12/14/84, prepared by Guido & Associates, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #12-252-84 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Sign Permit Application #1317 by John Dinan requesting to erect three ground signs on the northeast corner of Farmington Road and Lyndon Avenue in Section 22, for further study. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mr. Smith, it was #12-253-84 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 487th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on December 4, 1984, are approved as corrected to add the following reason to the approving resolution proposed by the Commission with regard to Petition 84-9-2-32 by Fa rmb rook Construction Company: (6) That the petition as presented would provide for development of the 13.7 acres preserving more open space than would be possible with conventional single family subdivision develop- ment. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Naidow, Falk, Duggan, Smith, Kluver, Hildebrandt , Sobolewski , Morrow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Vyhnalek Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 488th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on December 18, 1984 was adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION c--e.- i--1 Sue S olewski , Secretary ATTEST: . N OQ R. ee Morrov, Chairman 110, ac